Bob Yates is absolutely right that in the "I think, therefore I am" example,
"I am" is in no sense incomplete.  Righto.

And it also is not the "same" "I am" as in "John is...." in the errant puppy
example.

While there are some limitations on paraphrase tests, we can see the
difference as follows:

I think, therefore I am = I think, therefore I exist.
John is ___ = John is happy and well rested. NOT "John exists happy and well
rested."

so, the 'BE' verb in "I think, therefore I am" is of the meaning "exist." If
there were to be any post-verbal modifiers on it, they would be adverbial in
nature, methinks -- like "I am happily, robustly, etc."

That is, remember that one thing going on with argument patterning is that we
see not only the number and type of phrasal chunks that happen in a sentence
as determined by the verb, but we also see the RELATIONSHIP between the verb
and the phrasal chunks, and between the phrasal chunks themselves.

Thus, in the John is ___ (happy...) example, the descriptor after the verb
goes to tell us something about the subject. Describing John as happy.

But in the philosophical "I am", there is indeed no chunk after the verb, and
if there were, it would NOT describe the subject, but would specify something
further about the verb/action itself (happily, robust).



ciao,

rebecca



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
until 5/15/99
Rebecca S. Wheeler, Ph.D.       [log in to unmask]
1201 University Circle
Department of English                   office phone:     (801) 626-6009
Weber State University                  office fax:       (801) 626-7760
Ogden, UTah 84408-1201
                 USA

After 6/1/99
Rebecca S. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English
Department of English
Christopher Newport University
Newport News, VA 23606


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^